Floor Statements

I come to the floor this morning to speak on the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2014.

I have been working on this bill with my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Hagan. We have been working on this bill together for about 1 year. Our package is very reflective of its name. It is a bipartisan sportsmen's package.

We have, as of this morning, 46 Members signed on in support of this legislation. I think most would agree that at this time to have 46 Members across the aisle reaching together on any issue is quite extraordinary, and one would think we would have a clear path forward as to how we can advance a measure that has brought together a very diverse group of Senators, diverse from different parts of the country. But it speaks to how important and how widely accepted and supported these issues are, and this is in no small part due to the fact that America's sports men and women come from all over the country. They are not just in the rural areas and out in the country, but they are in the big cities, they are in urban centers, they are in the North, and they are in the South. For so many of us, outdoor activities and traditions define who we are.

I don't know how it is in North Dakota, but September 1 in our household--I recognize that is Labor Day for us around the country, but for most Alaskans I know, it is opening day. It is opening day, and it is when everybody is getting ready to go out duck hunting, and then we have moose season, we have caribou season. We define our seasons not by the calendar but by what is happening with hunting.

Right now, in my State, all that anyone is talking about is fishing. The reds are running on the Kenai. That is where I am going to be this weekend with my husband. Last week it was all about the kings on the Nushagak.

This morning an article in the newspaper around the State is about a sports angler who caught a 482-pound halibut off of Gustavus. It described the fisherman as a 77-year-old man who came up to the State. This is his third visit to Gustavus because he likes going out for the halibut. For a small community such as Gustavus to have fishermen come in to their town and bring the dollars they do, this is big for us. This helps our economy. It is not only fun, it is an economic driver in so many parts of my State.

Whether it is hunting or fishing, these are issues Alaskans care about. I think they are also issues people in North Dakota, Virginia, and Maryland and all over the country care about.

What we have done in this very bipartisan bill is combined a host of

measures that speak to some of the regulatory reforms that will provide greater access for our sports men and women, whether on the water or on the land, whether it is the Hunting, Fishing, and Recreational Shooting Protection Act, the Target Practice and Marksmanship Training Support Act, which provides for revenues and dollars to help with hunter education programs--very important for us around the country-- electronic duck stamps, Farmer and Hunter Protection Act, Hunting Heritage Opportunities Act--again, all provisions and measures Senator Hagan and I have worked on to build these initiatives into one package to focus on how we can do more to provide for greater access for our sports men and women around the country.

But we also provide for some very important conservation principles. We include the North American Wetlands Conservation Act and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Reauthorization Act, some very important measures. We have a provision we have included from Senator Heinrich, the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act reauthorization. So it is not just on the access side, but it is also focused on the conservation side as well.

There is very strong support not only within this body but also within sports organizations all over the country. Some 42 different organizations have come together to sign a letter in support of advancing this measure through the Senate.

We spend a lot of time here on the Senate floor talking about: Well, we might be able to advance something in the Senate, but we don't know how it is going to fare on the House side. We have already seen good action, similar legislation sponsored by Congressman Latta from Ohio, that passed the House on February 5 of this year by over a 100-vote margin. So clearly the support is not only bipartisan, it is bicameral.

What we have done, working together with Senator Hagan and her good staff, is worked hard to try to coordinate these efforts to ensure that the House and Senate bills are closely aligned, so that when we move something out of here we don't have to guess as to what might happen, we know we are going to have good, strong support.

I am obviously very hopeful that we can complete our work on this bill. But before we complete the work on the bill, we have to be able to start work on the bill.

I also recognize that unless we can agree to an open and a fair amendment process where we actually take some votes around here on amendments offered by folks on both sides, we are probably unlikely to make progress on this bill. I think that is very unfortunate, because I know there are a lot of folks in my State hoping we are going to move on this, who are saying: If the Senate can't come together on something like a bipartisan sportsman package, where you have 46 Members coming together to do this, wow, how are they going to do anything? We need to be able to demonstrate we can work together on some of these initiatives where there is a good level of consensus.

I hate to be in the place where we are right now, arguing about whether we are going to be able to take up any relevant amendments. I want us to take up these relevant amendments.

I like the bill Senator Hagan and I worked on. If I didn't like it, I wouldn't be standing here trying to advance and encourage my colleagues that we move forward to it. But I also know that as good as Senator Hagan and I are in representing these issues, we don't have a monopoly on all the good ideas. We don't have a monopoly on everything coming from different parts of the country. We need to have input from our colleagues.

I will remind us that the measure in front of us is not a measure that has gone through the full committee process. This is a measure that has advanced to the floor through a process known as rule XIV, where it hasn't had the benefit of Members advancing their amendments through the committee process.

I want to have an amendment process. I want to have the debate on some of the measures we have in front of us. I want to stand and tell people why I think it is important we provide for additional access for our sports men and women on our public lands and that we can be doing more to help incentivize that. But we have to have that amendment process.

As many of my colleagues know, we have been here before. We have been here as recently as 2012. It was a highly frustrating experience. We had a similar sportsmen's bill that was bogged down--basically, it was political posturing--late last Congress and it didn't go anywhere as a result.

So with that history in mind, and knowing what we went through in 2012, I decided last July 2013 to introduce my own sportsmen's package. What I wanted to try to do is figure: OK, let's see if we can take some of the politics out of this measure, try to be very bipartisan, try to be nonpolitical.

As the ranking member of the committee with jurisdiction and as one who wasn't up for election at this point in time, I felt I was in perhaps a good spot to maybe lead this thing forward. So we put the ideas out there in November. Senator Hagan introduced her own bill, the SPORT Act. What became very apparent to both of us was that if we continued down this two-track path, we would not be successful in passage.

Senator Hagan and I agreed: We know what the goal is, passage of good bipartisan legislation. So we sought middle ground and we put together what we think is common sense. We took good ideas that both of us had, we melded them and we put together what we think are the best interests of the sportsmen's community around the country. Then we went out and recruited our cosponsors, we secured the time for floor consideration, and now we are here, caught in the same argument about whether relevant amendments from our caucuses should be allowed.

My answer on this is pretty simple. It is a flatout yes. Yes, of course relevant amendments should be allowed. Yes, we should actually be doing our job here in the Senate, taking good ideas from both sides and advancing a package that, again, hasn't gone through the traditional path of the committee process.

Senator Hagan and I have again built this, and many of our colleagues agree with it; otherwise, they would not have signed on as cosponsors. We greatly appreciate their support. But, again, I think it is important to get their perspectives on this initiative before we take a final vote on the bill.

I do want to be very clear, because I heard comments this morning that Republicans are somehow or another filibustering this bill. I find that kind of stunning. The Republican conference is absolutely prepared to vote on all relevant amendments. We have a list. Last evening when I left, there was a list of 13 that had been filed. This morning, that list has grown. It has doubled. It is probably growing as we speak. Let's get moving on these relevant amendments--these amendments that are tied to the bill itself.

It is not just Republican amendments. We have a good handful of them I would like to see advanced. There are amendments on both sides, and some of these amendments are very relevant to specific States.

I know Senator Landrieu has an amendment that is very unique to Louisiana. It is the Kisatchie National Forest deer hunting amendment, very specific to Louisiana. It wasn't included in the package Senator Hagan and I built because we were trying to do it broader, more comprehensive, national in scope. But if Senator Landrieu feels this is an important piece to have, she should have an opportunity to weigh in on that.

Senator Cardin and Senator Crapo have introduced an amendment, the National Fish Habitat Conservation Act--again, a bipartisan amendment led by Senator Cardin, clearly relevant to this measure. Why would we not want to have the opportunity to advance some of these provisions that Members feel will enhance a bill that already has good, strong support.

I want to make sure Members know I am fully committed to a full and open amendment process; that Republicans would like to see a full and open amendment process; and that we get moving. Instead of talking about getting moving, we actually make that happen.

I thank those who have come forward and offered their support for this measure. A lot of work has gone into

crafting the bill. But I am fearful that, once again, we are at risk of basically being cast aside because of political concerns.

I ask the majority leader to reconsider his view that relevant amendments are too difficult to vote on. We have to return to regular order. We have to have a fair and healthy debate on legislation-- especially legislation such as this that has not gone through the committee process, has good, strong support, but needs to have further input from Members all over the country.

I appreciate the consideration of the body here in trying to advance a measure that will help us not only when it comes to access for our fishermen and our sports men and women, provides for further conservation measures, but also helps us to advance a process in this body that at this time we so desperately lack.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would request that floor privileges for the balance of the month be afforded to my interns: Annika Graham, Nathan Sidell, Amber Vernon, Rebecca Carney-Braveman, Samuel Ortiz, Evyn Ysais, Marcus Gamble, Diane Murph, Izabella Powers, Sarah Pherson, Kendall Eilo, and Ben Gilman.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I wish to speak very briefly this afternoon to acknowledge a hero. I come to the floor just after the announcement has been made about a leader in the Senate, Senator Baker. While I did not have the privilege of serving at the same time as he, my father did. They were close friends, not only Senator Baker but Senator Kassebaum. My heart, my thoughts go out to the family. The contributions clearly from Senator Baker on so many different levels are so greatly appreciated.

I appreciate that my friend and colleague from Wyoming is helping to lead this discussion about the Keystone XL Pipeline and really to encourage the Senate to move on it, to do something on this rather than just talk about it.

We are sitting here Tuesday afternoon. We had a series of votes on judges here this morning, and it looks like we are going to have some more this week. But from the view of so many around this country who are worried about jobs, worried about the economy, worried about what is happening with the IRS, with the VA--and not to mention what has happened on the world scene--it looks like we are going to have yet another unproductive week in the Senate.

Since we are here and we have time, I can't think of a better time on a better issue to take up than this Keystone XL Pipeline.

The bill that we are asking to be brought up is Senate bill S. 2280. It was introduced by our colleague from North Dakota, Senator Hoeven. He introduced it on May 1.

It was placed on the legislative calendar a few days later. It has 55 cosponsors. When we talk about bipartisan issues and initiatives within the Senate, 55 is a very good number. It includes 11 Democrats, including the chair of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

We are well behind the House of Representatives, though, on this initiative. They passed a Keystone bill over 1 year ago, but we have been working in the energy committee. We had a Keystone bill that was reported out of the energy committee just last week.

We passed an original bill on a bipartisan basis. It has not yet been filed, but it is virtually identical to Senator Hoeven's bill, which we are discussing today.

But I did vote. I know my colleague from Wyoming and I know the Presiding Officer voted for Senator Landrieu's original bill. I did so because I think it is good policy to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. I committed at that hearing, and I certainly commit now, that I am going to do everything I can to help advance this initiative. If and when her bill is placed on the calendar, I intend to support that as well.

But the problem that we have--and it should be no surprise to most-- is no matter how many Keystone bills are added to the calendar, it appears that the majority leader is going to ignore them. It doesn't matter how long Keystone has been under review, it doesn't matter how many new jobs will be created, and it doesn't matter that the delays are political and not substantive.

The fact of the matter is we cannot get to that point where we can take up this important initiative. The majority leader could have offered us a vote on Senator Hoeven's bill at any point over these past 6 weeks, but he has chosen not to.

It seems very clear to me that he has no intention of moving to it, especially if we just kind of sit back on this and don't push. It may be that is the will of some in this body--that they don't want us to do anything, they don't want us to push forward. But I think that is contrary to the will, to the wish of 56 Members of this Chamber, and it is contrary to our national interests.

It is interesting to note Democrats were not always opposed to importing crude oil from Canada, as they would appear today. Back in 1970 the Nixon administration announced that it would place a quota on Canadian oil imports, and it was none other than Senator Ted Kennedy who led the fight against this decision.

Senator Kennedy said in a Senate hearing in March of 1970:

The reason why Canadian oil has never been restricted in

the past is obvious. Canadian oil is as militarily and

politically secure as our own and thus there can be no

national security justification for limiting its importation.

Those were pretty telling words back then, and I think they still hold true today. It wasn't only Ted Kennedy. There were other Democrats who opposed the Nixon administration's restriction on trade with Canada: Senator Proxmire of Wisconsin and Senator McIntyre of New Hampshire.

I think we have had such an opportunity on this floor to debate the merits of the Keystone XL Pipeline and to debate not only how many good-paying jobs it can bring to us but how it can help this Nation and Canada as we work to promote our North American energy independence.

Our energy partnership with Canada has taken decades to develop. It has had some rocky times, but all good and worthy relationships take a little bit of work to maintain.

So if the Obama administration is unwilling to do the hard work of diplomacy and make this remarkably easy decision--approving a job- creating and a security-enhancing pipeline--then I think it is time for Congress to act. That is why a few of us have gathered here today to move this issue forward, to do more than just talking about it, but to get the Senate to the point where we might actually have an opportunity to vote on it and do some good for this country.

So we are sitting here waiting. We have an opportunity to do it, and I think we should end the delay. I think we should move forward with this bill.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, this has been an interesting week here in the Senate.

When we began this week, there was a great deal of attention focused on what was happening overseas with the release of a prisoner of war who had been in captivity for some 4 to 5 years, Sergeant Bergdahl.

Conversation moved to education, with a measure that Senator Warren from Massachusetts had introduced. The thought was we would be discussing education issues--the high cost of college and the burden of college debt on our students.

Then we turned later yesterday to veterans and how we address the real scandal we have seen within the VA in failing to provide that level of care in a timely manner for our veterans who have served us so honorably.

It has been kind of a fast and furious week, and I wish to take a few minutes this afternoon to talk about my perspective on not only the legislation that Senator Warren had put out for discussion, but, really, the concerns so many in this country have when it comes to the issue of student loan debt.

I am the mom of a recent college graduate. Our number two son is going to be entering his senior year of college. So we are fully embroiled as parents in the understanding as to what the current costs of a college education are, what young students go through in order to achieve their dreams of going to college and their struggles as they then face the reality of moving into a working world, but starting off saddled with debt that can be almost breathtaking for them.

In addition to being a mom of kids in this generation, I am also a former commissioner of the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education. This is Alaska's State agency lender. So I am coming at the issue wearing a couple of different hats today.

I know full well people are discussing the issue of the high cost of college and student loan debt--and not just here on the floor of the Senate but talking about it around their kitchen tables. They are very concerned about the cost of college and the burden the debt then places on our young Americans.

Young people who are just starting out after college graduation have an average debt of about $27,000. Now, some would say $27,000 is manageable; that is about in the range if you are purchasing a new car. But think about it. For a young person just out of college, starting to make those initial payments, $27,000 can be a staggering amount. Whether we talk to the young people working the phones in either a State office or here, the young interns that I have--who are excited about the prospects of going to college or are in the midst of college or who have just graduated from college--some of that excitement and that enthusiasm dims when they realize what it is they are taking on. So this debt is daunting.

Keep in mind, that debt then assumes the means to pay it back. So many of our young people of course cannot find a job. For the 18- to 24-year-old age bracket, the unemployment rate is twice the national average. For those graduating with a masters or a doctorate, of course, the debt burden is much more.

Then for the parents and those who have taken out loans to help put their kids through college--many families also struggling. So, again, this is something that families are talking about around their dinner table. And I am hearing about this from parents, from high school and college students in Alaska, and talking with my interns here. They all say the same thing. They are all concerned. They are all concerned about the cost of college and job training and the debt they are going to incur and their ability then to move forward, whether it is to buy that first car, whether it is to purchase a home, the decisions about getting married or starting a family. The debt has an impact, and that is absolutely a given.

I do think it is important to know we in Congress have not turned a blind eye to this and we have been working over the years to help address the cost. The College Cost Reduction and Access Act and the Higher Education Opportunity Act are measures that I worked to craft some years ago, and they address these issues in many ways. We created income-based repayment and public service loan forgiveness. There was Active Military loan deferment, graduate student eligibility for income contingent repayment, interest rate reductions, Pell grant increases, TEACH grants, automatic zero expected family contribution for low- income families and much more.

We improved student support programs like TRIO and helped ensure students and parents have access to the kind of information they need to ensure they really do get top dollar for their education dollars and also to help students then persist in college to complete that process to earn the degree. We required counseling for federal loan borrowers prior to the students' graduation on repayment plans, debt management, loan forgiveness, consequences of default, tax benefits, and more. We also required disclosure about the terms and conditions of the Federal Family Education Loan Program. These are the FFEL loan programs before the loans are disbursed, before repayment, and during repayment.

Recently Congress has supported pay as you earn and other programs and just last year enacted a new interest rate structure to protect both students and taxpayers.

Unfortunately, we haven't seen much out of the administration to make Americans aware that these opportunities actually exist, that they are in law. We heard a nominee for a senior policy position at the U.S. Department of Education who tried to justify this lack of action by saying the provisions were just enacted recently. But 7 years ago is not recent when it comes to helping Americans understand the many loan repayment options. Just this week we heard the President give the Department of Education yet another 6 months to figure out how to tell Americans about their loan repayment options. I think we can do better.

I heard just last week a young teacher who was testifying before a Senate committee. She said she was completely unaware of the income- based repayment program which could have saved her about $4,000. Instead, with her unaffordably high loan payments, she basically defaulted on her loans. So it is important that when we put measures in place, we do make sure that education effort is there on the back end so people understand and can take advantage of some of these initiatives that will help to make a difference.

Obviously we do not have the Warren legislation in front of us for consideration. I am certain that it will be a matter that will be brought back before the Senate. I certainly would hope we would have extended debate about what we as a Senate can be doing to help our young people as they deal with the burden of college debt, of job training debt, and what we can do to ensure they are well on their way to good strong careers. But I want to raise just a couple of issues that presented themselves with the legislation that Senator Warren had put out on the floor, because they speak to a program in my State that has considerable impact.

Madam President, I know that I was scheduled to speak for about 15 minutes this afternoon. I have another colleague that is on the floor. I would ask unanimous consent for about another 5 minutes, if that is acceptable to my colleague and to the Chair.

I thank the Presiding Officer, and I thank my friend from Ohio.

First, I would like to bring up the issue of the Alaska State student aid agency. The Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education--or as we call it ACPE--is funded by the Alaska Student Loan Corporation. It is a public corporation in the State of Alaska and it is an agency that originates Federal loans under the old Federal Family Education Loan Program, FFEL, and for 40 years it has originated State loans. Now, before you dismiss ACPE

as just another private lender, let me tell you what this agency does. It is the Alaska agency for authorizing and investigating institutions of higher education. They provide consumer protection for Alaskans. They gather student data to inform policymakers so we know what policies and practices are working and where improvement is necessary. They manage the State's performance scholarships and education grants, which provide both merit and need-based grants to Alaskan students for postsecondary education. They create and manage college readiness and job training programs and help them figure out how to afford it. What ACPE does is promote access to and success in high quality post- secondary education and job training for thousands of Alaskans and non- Alaskans who are attending Alaskan schools. But they also have a special emphasis on outreach to groups that are underrepresented in postsecondary education.

They do such a great job for us in the State that when the late- Senator Ted Kennedy was here, he insisted on creating the College Access Challenge Grant Program to expand what ACPE had been doing for all these years.

But the measure that Senator Warren has, the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act, would potentially put these programs in peril and potentially end them. It would incentivize borrowers who borrowed their FFEL loans and their State loans through ACPE to refinance. But because this opportunity would only be available to borrowers in good standing on their State loans, it would leave ACPE with only the poorest performing and lowest credit quality loans in its portfolio, leaving behind the borrowers who are the ones the sponsors of the bill say we really need to help so much.

The loss of the FFEL loans would be bad enough, but here is another problem. State student financial aid loans were financed by the Alaska Student Loan Corporation through long-term fixed rate revenue bond issues. These have very restrictive terms with respect to paying them off before their scheduled maturity dates. The impact on the State agencies and the Alaskans they serve and to the corporation's bond rating of having a large percentage of student loan volume prepaid through this refinancing bill would be severe. The money the Treasury would pay ACPE for those loans could not be used to pay off the bonds early, nor can it be reinvested at anywhere near the interest rate on the outstanding bonds. The value of the bonds exceeds $65 million. It is not only the cost to the agency and its ability to function. Whether the State corporation were to default or to perhaps go to the legislature for a bailout, the consequences are not good. Either situation would be toxic for the Alaska Student Loan Corporation in terms of subsequently being able to issue bonds that really would be palatable to any investor.

In addition to the risk of default or a hefty bill placed on the State and being labeled a toxic risk to bond issuers, the combined loss of income across both old FFEL loans and State loans could very well leave ACPE unable to continue to perform any of the services that it performs really quite well.

This is not the only issue I have as it relates to what we have before us this week. We don't want our students, our young people to be struggling when it comes to debt. We have to work together to try to find the solutions that truly are helpful across the spectrum. One of the problems that we noted, though, was that the bill would prohibit Americans who have private loans from banks or State agencies, and who are having trouble paying as agreed, to refinance to a lower rate--a prohibition that does not extend to those who are having trouble paying their Direct and FFEL loans. I cannot understand why we would treat Americans differently based on the kind of debt they have. The sponsors of the bill I think genuinely want to help struggling borrowers, but with this provision they leave a lot of folks out in the cold. So that is something that needs to be addressed.

According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the cost of college is going up, but State funding for higher education, which went down during the recession, is not rebounding. We are seeing exceptions in Alaska and North Dakota. But according to the CBPP, Louisiana is at the top of the list and contributes a little over $5,000 less per student to higher education than they did prior to fiscal year 2008. Hawaii, New Mexico, and Alabama are seeing $4,000 per student less. Idaho, South Carolina, Massachusetts, Nevada, Connecticut, and Arizona are in the $3,000 less per student range. The list goes on.

So when the States are unable to contribute to their public universities and postsecondary education in general, the cost burden then for our students too often goes up. Even when our colleges tighten their belts and cut their internal costs, we see the costs rise.

So obviously there is a great deal to do. I know that so many of my colleagues are committed to working to find that good solution which works not only for students in my State but around the entire country.

We have our work cut out for us. I appreciate the efforts that many have made. I think the discussion will continue, and I look forward to that.

With that I yield to my colleague from Ohio, and I thank the Senator for his indulgence of an additional 5 minutes.

Madam President, I wish to thank RADM Thomas P. Ostebo for his leadership as commander of the U.S. Coast Guard's 17th District. In this role Rear Admiral Ostebo was responsible for all Coast Guard assets and operations in Alaska--operations that were safely executed in some of the country's harshest and most demanding conditions. From May 2011 to June 2014, Rear Admiral Ostebo was the head Coast Guard official in Alaska, leading 2,500 Active Duty, Reserve, civilian, and auxiliary personnel, all charged to keep the largest State, with over 44,000 miles of coastline, safe, secure, and prosperous. Under his leadership, Rear Admiral Ostebo's crews successfully executed this mission by conducting over 1,600 search and rescue cases, saving 519 lives and assisting more than 2,200 individuals.

In addition to commanding this courageous cadre of Coast Guard men and women, Rear Admiral Ostebo remained a consistent champion for the State of Alaska. He was a leader on Arctic issues on many different levels. He recognized the importance of the Arctic trade routes and launched operation Arctic Shield, the Coast Guard's seasonal Arctic operation, to ensure the safe transit of commercial shipping routes, maintain Alaska's wild and sustainably managed fisheries, and sustain a ready response to any rescue mission at a moment's notice. Further, Rear Admiral Ostebo fostered many important partnerships with Alaska Natives and leadership that shared best practices and traditional knowledge of those that rely on the Arctic for subsistence.

On behalf of all Alaskans I want to personally thank Rear Admiral Ostebo for the great work he has performed during his command in Alaska. I wish him the best of luck as he transitions to the next phase of his career. He will be greatly missed in Alaska.

Mr. President, I request that the following interns from my office be given privileges of the floor for the balance of the day: Emily Hartley, Alfonso Sitenga, Rachel Tougas, Michaela Spaulding, Deirdre Creed, Maria Villa, Lyndsey Brollini, Nicole Eldred, Austin Ramsay, Mckenzie Stepovic, Kendall Eilo, Ben Gilman, Gabrielle Gilbertson, and Luke Hopkins.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I come this afternoon to speak about the regulations proposed by the administration on Monday relating to the Environmental Protection Agency. This time the agency's target is a 30-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from existing powerplants by the year 2030.

The regulation that has been announced, which has been the subject of a great deal of conversation this week, should not be confused with EPA rules for cooling water intake or for proposed powerplants or for cross-state air pollution or for boilers or for ozone or for incinerators or for regional haze or for fuel economy or for the waters of the United States or for renewable fuels or for cement kilns or for coal ash or for effluent limitations or for any other number of regulatory actions that the agency has taken or is expected to take.

This rule--and there have been so many of them, it almost feels like this should be EPA's rule of the week or rule of the month--is a unilateral effort to bypass Congress and to force into place policies that we in Congress have not approved. The goal is to push our electric supply away from coal and, I think, ultimately, away from natural gas as soon as possible.

As the ranking member on the energy committee, I can attest that energy is always the flip side of the environmental debate. If we have a discussion about energy, we always have a discussion about the environment.

I believe we should advance policies that make our energy abundant, affordable, clean, diverse, and secure. To that end, our environmental goals must be balanced with our energy needs.

Because of this, I have for years expressed concern that EPA's relentless onslaught will harm the affordability and the reliability of our electric supply. In fact, I even released a white paper on this matter earlier this year. We still do not have an accurate accounting of the cumulative costs associated with all of these EPA rules that I just gave in the laundry list, but we do know not to trust their math because EPA has dramatically underestimated the powerplant retirements in very recent past.

I will give you some examples. For the mercury and air toxic rules, EPA estimated only 4.7 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity retirements by the year 2015. But then we see the contrast. The labor unions forecast that MATS alone would result in 55 gigawatts of coal plant retirements and the loss of some 250,000 jobs. Government experts have determined that approximately 10 to 20 percent of existing coal capacity could be retired by the middle of the next decade. This is a calculation that really dwarfs EPA's number and one that doesn't include the potential impact of the latest proposal.

Now, I know that the EPA has an important job to do, and I appreciate that, but I also recognize that it does not and cannot regulate in a vacuum. Baseload coal and the ancillary services that it provides account for almost 40 percent of our power. In many instances the EPA's regulations will render generating units uneconomic, with compliance requiring retrofitting, the use of best available technology, and downtime for installation. So I am concerned--greatly concerned--that the EPA's rules, particularly when you combine them with one another, will result in a grid that is less stable and less reliable. The cumulative effect of federal regulations on baseload capacity resources, whether they are coal or nuclear, which produce electricity on demand has to be looked at. We have to examine and appreciate the cumulative effect of this loss of production and not discount or ignore it.

Many this past winter got a taste of what life in Alaska is like in the wintertime when we experienced the polar vortex here in the lower 48. The polar vortex caused 50,000 megawatts of powerplant outages. For one key system 89 percent of the coal capacity that is scheduled for retirement next year because of an EPA rule was called upon to meet the rising demand.

So again, just think about that.

We had a tough winter. We had coal-fueled facilities that were able to step up and provide for that increased demand--89 percent of that capacity was utilized during this polar vortex. That is fine. But what happens when those facilities are now offline, when they are in retirement, when you do not have that backup?

The question we really need to be asking is, What happens when that capacity is gone? Hoping for a mild winter isn't a viable strategy. You cannot have a hope-and-prayer energy policy, hoping that the weather is not going to be so bad. Our Nation relies on installed dispatchable power generation during extreme weather, which is why we need to ensure grid reliability through a diversity of baseload capacity.

Today it is unclear how many plants will retrofit to comply with various EPA regulations--including this most recent one--as opposed to making a decision to just shut down. It is uncertain if there will be enough time--to say nothing of sufficient capital available for investment--to build these new facilities or other forms of generation needed to ensure the continued reliability of the grid.

I have been talking about grid reliability for a long while now, and I think it speaks to our system that while we may have been pushed to the edge of getting nervous, we have been able to meet that reliability requirement Americans have just come to expect. They want to know that when they want to have the lights on or keep cool or keep warm, there is that availability. Reliability is key here. I am even more troubled that the EPA, which has conceded that a single rule may result in what they have called a ``localized effect,'' has not sought from our grid regulators, FERC and NERC, an analysis of the cumulative impact its rules may have. Understanding the impacts of these rules by checking in with our grid regulators, FERC and NERC, as part of a formal process is an important part of what needs to go on. Yet we are not seeing that follow-through. Instead, EPA appears to be morphing into an industrial planning agency for the energy sector. That is not what they are designed to do. This latest rulemaking makes it even more important for FERC and the Department of Energy to step up, to really go toe-to-toe here with EPA to protect the reliability and the affordability of our power supply.

The current chairwoman of FERC, while she has not called for a formal official role for the commission--as many of us would like--is certainly up to the task in my view. But with that situation at play right now within the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, it appears that the White House doesn't want to keep the acting chair in charge. Its nominee to serve as chairman is both short on energy experience and largely unaware of the electricity reliability implications of EPA's rules.

In response to a hearing question about grid reliability from Senator Manchin, the nominee conceded that he ``has not been following the decisional process at EPA closely enough to know.''

I find that response not only disturbing, but I think it raises the question of whether anyone within the administration is actually following the EPA process closely enough to know what will happen to our electric grid. I can tell you that I don't think the EPA knows the impact for my State of Alaska. The Agency readily admits that its proposal ``fails to account for the expected costs and benefits for areas outside of the contiguous United States.''

Alaska is one-fifth the size of the country, and we are part of the country. But the EPA, in advancing these proposed regulations, admits that ``we don't know.'' We don't know the cost-benefit for Alaska. We don't know the cost-benefit for Hawaii. That does not mean that my State is exempt from this rule as some reports have led Alaskans to believe. Instead, without the

benefit of any analysis, EPA has directed Alaska to reduce our emissions by 26 percent and this while EPA ignores--totally ignores-- the likely inflationary costs and increases inherent in requiring the revamping of so much power production likely within a single decade.

The EPA has recommended that States work together, work together to figure out how we are going to make these cuts. But again, when you are not part of the contiguous United States, it is a little more difficult for us in Alaska and our neighbors to the south in Hawaii if we are not part of an interstate electricity grid. Alaska is really in many ways on its own. Because of our constant need for Federal approvals or at best Federal cooperation that is too often slow to come, we are not even able to develop our clean hydropower.

Some may ask: Well, I understand that you have about 25 percent of your power in the State of Alaska coming from hydro. That is correct. But because of other Federal policies--whether it is the roadless rule or other policies--we are truly hamstrung in our ability to build out more hydro. Based on more than 50 years of delay or broken Federal promises, there is no guarantee that we will be able to develop fully our abundant natural gas or even our vast renewable resource potential.

We have challenges and we acknowledge them. We are working on those challenges. We are working diligently because there is nobody who wants to get reliable, affordable, clean diverse energy supplies to our State more honestly and earnestly than myself. But it is challenging. So as we work towards that transition, we need that flexibility. We need that time.

Now the EPA has suggested a series of strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But of the five powerplants in Alaska that are directly impacted by this proposed rule, four are natural-gas-fired plants, and they are located near each other and Anchorage. So in the whole State of Alaska there are only five plants that are impacted by this regulation. Everything else is small enough or doesn't sell its power. So of the five, four of them are already natural gas. The fifth already has clean coal technology. The proposed strategies of switching to natural gas, dispatch changes or retiring plants are really just unworkable given the configuration we have in my State. Given that we live in this polar vortex every winter--everywhere is polar vortex in Alaska--many of our houses are well insulated to protect from the cold. So efficiency programs will provide comparatively small gains.

Having said that, I know that we can and must do more when it comes to efficiencies, and I will continue to push on that because that is an area where I think we can make a difference. But trying to get to this 26-percent reduction is a challenge. I am still canvassing my State, but it will be difficult for Alaska to reach our 26-percent emissions reduction without serious economic impact.

Electricity is already more expensive in Alaska than in most of the rest of the Nation. We have to reduce these prices, not engage in policies that will raise those prices even higher. In the lower 48 States, on average, an American family spends a little over 4 percent of their household budget towards their energy--keeping the lights on and keeping the house warm or cool--depending on the season. In many parts of my State of Alaska we have households that pay between 40 and 50 percent of their household budget to stay warm and to keep the lights on. So I am looking at this very, very critically. While I want to ensure that our air is clean, that we are working to reduce health risks, we don't have any room in Alaska to increase our energy costs. We have to be working aggressively with one another to reduce those costs.

So I look at the proposal that has come out from the EPA this week, and I am very concerned about how a State such as mine will achieve the level that the EPA has imposed on it without extraordinary increases to cost.

Some have labeled this recent EPA proposed regulation ObamaCare 2.0, and in many ways it is. The administration insists that there will be no cost increases associated with this rule. All we are missing here is an awful Web site and a pledge that if you like your current electricity bill, you can keep it. The President promises the electricity bills will shrink, but I am not buying that. The Wall Street Journal has rightly labeled this a huge tax on the poor and the middle class, and no one understands what will happen if States perhaps refuse to move forward with their own plans. Again, you have to ask the question: Does anybody really think that the EPA has the ability to impose its Federal will while simultaneously keeping the lights on and keeping power affordable to all 50 States?

Despite negative economic growth last quarter and despite far better approaches pending in Congress to promote energy efficiency and energy innovation, such as an energy efficiency bill that my colleague from Ohio has been working doggedly to try to advance--a measure that I think is smart and sound and built on good policy--to not only help States like mine but all across the country, we do have some good proposals out there. We have initiatives we can move forward. But instead the President has decided to push ahead and to propose sweeping new regulations on our still weak economy.

We must keep costs and reliability in mind as regulatory mandates push more and more baseload coal plants offline. FERC must be the unambiguous champion of reliability with a formal and a documented role with respect to EPA's rulemaking process. Powerful regulatory laws must be judicially administered, and only Congress--not the EPA--should decide such consequential changes for our energy supply, our economy, and our people. I think anything less is unacceptable and could very well yield significant negative consequences for a wide variety of American families and our businesses.

I thank the Presiding Officer for her attention and the opportunity to discuss a very important issue for our entire country.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to Cathy Cahill for the remainder of the 113th Congress.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two separate bills to open a small portion of the Arctic coastal plain, in my home State of Alaska, to oil and gas development. I am introducing these bills because new production in northern Alaska is vital to my State's future and global energy security.

The 1.5 million acres of the Arctic coastal plain that lie within the non-wilderness portion of the 19 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are North America's greatest prospect for conventional onshore production. The U.S. Geological Survey continues to estimate that this part of the coastal plain has a mean likelihood of containing 10.4 billion barrels of oil and 8.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, as well as a reasonable chance of economically producing 16 billion barrels of oil. If produced at a rate of 1 million barrels per day, that supply could last for more than 40 years--bringing us jobs, revenues, and security in every one of them.

Today, Alaska supplies about 7 percent of U.S. crude oil. This is a 4 percent decline since I last introduced similar bills in 2011. It is an even more substantial loss compared to what we have provided in past decades, and what we could be providing today. Importantly, despite the Federal Government owning almost 70 percent of the lands in Alaska, almost all of our oil production is from State lands. The only production on Federal lands is from the Northstar project, a small man- made island that straddles state and federal waters in the Beaufort Sea.

For more than 30 years, my State has successfully balanced resource development with environmental protection. Alaskans have proven, over and over again, that these endeavors are not mutually exclusive, and with advances in technology, the footprint of development projects is only getting smaller. Yet at the Federal level, there is an astonishing refusal to acknowledge that record.

As a result, production on the North Slope continues to decline by about 6 percent annually. With new exploration and development projects on Federal lands blocked or delayed at every turn, Alaska faces a tipping point. Declining production is now threatening the continued operation of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. A closure of TAPS would shut down all northern Alaska oil production, devastating Alaska's economy, causing global oil prices to rise, and deepening our dependence on unstable petrostates throughout the world. Exploration and development in the Arctic offshore and National Petroleum Reserve- Alaska are moving forward, but these resources will not be developed without a viable way to transport them to market.

The bills I introduce today, S. 2408 and S. 2409, would disturb no more than 2,000 acres of the vast coastal plain, and one bill would not allow surface occupancy of the coastal plain, only directional drilling from outside the refuge to access the oil and gas resources. To put this in perspective, 2,000 acres is less than the size of the local Dulles Airport, or about \1/10\ of 1 percent of the refuge. Since these areas are less than 60 miles from TAPS, development in the coastal plain is the quickest, most environmentally-sound way to increase oil production in Alaska and ensure the pipeline will operate well into the future, providing jobs and supporting the economies of both Alaska and the United States.

The terms of both bills include strong protections for fish and wildlife, fish and wildlife habitat, subsistence resources, and the environment. Development could not move forward if it would cause significant adverse impacts to the coastal plain. Both bills

also return 50 percent of all revenues to the Federal Government, rather than the 10 percent allowed under current law. At approximately $100 per barrel, and given the Coastal Plain's estimate of over 10 billion barrels, there is a trillion dollars' worth of oil locked up beneath this small area in northern Alaska.

As we continue to struggle with high long-term unemployment and unsustainable national debt, we need to pursue development opportunities more than ever. The shale oil and gas boom on state and private lands in the Lower 48 has been the one shining light as our economy struggles to recover from the recession. My bills offer us a chance to produce more of our own energy, for the good of the American people, in an environmentally-friendly way. With oil hovering near $100 a barrel, with so many of our fellow citizens out of work, and with the U.S. nation still about 40 percent dependent on foreign oil--it would be foolish to once again ignore our most promising prospect for new development.

For decades, Alaskans, whom polls show overwhelmingly support development of the coastal plain, have been asking permission to explore and develop the resources located there. Technology has advanced so that it is possible to develop oil and gas from the refuge with little or no impact on the area and its wildlife.

I hope this Congress will have the common sense to allow America to help itself by developing the coastal plain's substantial resources. This is critical to my State and the nation as a whole. With this in mind, I will work to educate the members of this chamber about the opportunity we have and the tremendous benefits it would provide. I will show why such development should occur--why it must occur--and how it can benefit all of us at a time when we so desperately need good economic news.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two separate bills to open a small portion of the Arctic coastal plain, in my home State of Alaska, to oil and gas development. I am introducing these bills because new production in northern Alaska is vital to my State's future and global energy security.

The 1.5 million acres of the Arctic coastal plain that lie within the non-wilderness portion of the 19 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are North America's greatest prospect for conventional onshore production. The U.S. Geological Survey continues to estimate that this part of the coastal plain has a mean likelihood of containing 10.4 billion barrels of oil and 8.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, as well as a reasonable chance of economically producing 16 billion barrels of oil. If produced at a rate of 1 million barrels per day, that supply could last for more than 40 years--bringing us jobs, revenues, and security in every one of them.

Today, Alaska supplies about 7 percent of U.S. crude oil. This is a 4 percent decline since I last introduced similar bills in 2011. It is an even more substantial loss compared to what we have provided in past decades, and what we could be providing today. Importantly, despite the Federal Government owning almost 70 percent of the lands in Alaska, almost all of our oil production is from State lands. The only production on Federal lands is from the Northstar project, a small man- made island that straddles state and federal waters in the Beaufort Sea.

For more than 30 years, my State has successfully balanced resource development with environmental protection. Alaskans have proven, over and over again, that these endeavors are not mutually exclusive, and with advances in technology, the footprint of development projects is only getting smaller. Yet at the Federal level, there is an astonishing refusal to acknowledge that record.

As a result, production on the North Slope continues to decline by about 6 percent annually. With new exploration and development projects on Federal lands blocked or delayed at every turn, Alaska faces a tipping point. Declining production is now threatening the continued operation of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. A closure of TAPS would shut down all northern Alaska oil production, devastating Alaska's economy, causing global oil prices to rise, and deepening our dependence on unstable petrostates throughout the world. Exploration and development in the Arctic offshore and National Petroleum Reserve- Alaska are moving forward, but these resources will not be developed without a viable way to transport them to market.

The bills I introduce today, S. 2408 and S. 2409, would disturb no more than 2,000 acres of the vast coastal plain, and one bill would not allow surface occupancy of the coastal plain, only directional drilling from outside the refuge to access the oil and gas resources. To put this in perspective, 2,000 acres is less than the size of the local Dulles Airport, or about \1/10\ of 1 percent of the refuge. Since these areas are less than 60 miles from TAPS, development in the coastal plain is the quickest, most environmentally-sound way to increase oil production in Alaska and ensure the pipeline will operate well into the future, providing jobs and supporting the economies of both Alaska and the United States.

The terms of both bills include strong protections for fish and wildlife, fish and wildlife habitat, subsistence resources, and the environment. Development could not move forward if it would cause significant adverse impacts to the coastal plain. Both bills

also return 50 percent of all revenues to the Federal Government, rather than the 10 percent allowed under current law. At approximately $100 per barrel, and given the Coastal Plain's estimate of over 10 billion barrels, there is a trillion dollars' worth of oil locked up beneath this small area in northern Alaska.

As we continue to struggle with high long-term unemployment and unsustainable national debt, we need to pursue development opportunities more than ever. The shale oil and gas boom on state and private lands in the Lower 48 has been the one shining light as our economy struggles to recover from the recession. My bills offer us a chance to produce more of our own energy, for the good of the American people, in an environmentally-friendly way. With oil hovering near $100 a barrel, with so many of our fellow citizens out of work, and with the U.S. nation still about 40 percent dependent on foreign oil--it would be foolish to once again ignore our most promising prospect for new development.

For decades, Alaskans, whom polls show overwhelmingly support development of the coastal plain, have been asking permission to explore and develop the resources located there. Technology has advanced so that it is possible to develop oil and gas from the refuge with little or no impact on the area and its wildlife.

I hope this Congress will have the common sense to allow America to help itself by developing the coastal plain's substantial resources. This is critical to my State and the nation as a whole. With this in mind, I will work to educate the members of this chamber about the opportunity we have and the tremendous benefits it would provide. I will show why such development should occur--why it must occur--and how it can benefit all of us at a time when we so desperately need good economic news.

Mr. President I have come to the floor today to introduce a piece of legislation that I feel is timely and critically necessary, the Department of Defense Suicide Tracking Act of 2014. As our Nation winds down involvement in the longest war in our history, it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that the men and women who have carried the burden of combat in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world, as well as their family members, are taken care of to the fullest extent possible. That means we must address the tragic suicide epidemic in our military. While the services have focused on this problem for years, there still appears to be significant gaps, especially in reserve component and dependent tracking and analysis. This is a complex issue with no obvious solutions, but I intend to work with my colleagues in the Senate to develop comprehensive, meaningful ways to address this problem.

The DoD recently released its 2012 DoD Suicide Event Report, which concluded that there were a total of 319 active component suicides and 203 reserve

component suicides in 2012. That equates to 22.7 and 24.2 for every 100,000 service members, respectively. Additionally, there were a total of 841 attempted suicides in 2012. While preliminary data suggests that 2013 had an 18 percent drop in suicides, this is still a significant and tragic problem in the military that we need to tackle head-on. The report doesn't include any data for dependent suicide or attempted suicide, because currently only the U.S. Army even tries to track that information, so there is no comprehensive assessment of how years of combat and readiness have impacted military dependents in that way.

The purpose of the DoD Suicide Tracking Act is to establish programs to consistently track and analyze information regarding suicides involving members of the reserve components and dependents of regular and reserve component members. Specifically, the bill would improve consistency in reserve component suicide prevention and resiliency programs by requiring the Secretary of Defense to develop a standard method for collecting, reporting, and assessing suicide data and suicide attempt data involving members of the National Guard and Reserves. Alaskans are extremely proud of the contributions of our National Guard and Reserve members, both home and abroad. They have endured the stress of readiness, deployments and combat like the active component, making us all very proud. As such, it is time that we ensure the Department of Defense is tracking and addressing their mental well- being just like every other military member.

According to an annual survey by the Blue Star Families military family advocacy group, of 5,100 military family members surveyed in 2012, 9 percent of military spouses reported that they had considered suicide. Of those, nearly a quarter said they had not sought help. This bill would establish a Department of Defense suicide prevention program for military dependents that requires each service to implement programs to track, report and analyze information regarding suicides. We often talk about the burden placed on military family members, but when it comes to suicide we have simply cut them out of the conversation. This bill would ensure the DoD finally focuses on the hardship and emotional stress born by military dependents and keeps them in the picture when evaluating the problem and working towards a solution. Our military family members have endured countless deployments, cared for injured service members, and picked up the pieces when heroes have made the ultimate sacrifice. I intend to make sure our government cares for them and gives them options beyond suicide to recover from their pain and emotional stress.

Suicide among the active military, reserve and veteran populations continues to be a problem that doesn't appear to be improving. Sadly, the problem will likely get worse before it improves as the war in Afghanistan winds down and the services downsize, sending veterans with complex mental issues into the private sector without the military for support. That is why we need to improve our efforts now to proactively identify and care for these service members and their families as soon as possible and with the full resourcing of the Department of Defense. Our military men and women, and their families, have endured years of conflict across the world. They embody the proud tradition of selfless service to our Nation and I cannot thank them enough for everything they do. I call on all of my colleagues in the Senate to help those who have dedicated their lives to helping others and who, day in and day out, make the ultimate sacrifice in the defense of our freedoms.

I would like to thank Representative Niki Tsongas for her leadership on this issue and introduction of the House companion bill, H.R. 4504.

Mr. President I have come to the floor today to introduce a piece of legislation that I feel is timely and critically necessary, the Department of Defense Suicide Tracking Act of 2014. As our Nation winds down involvement in the longest war in our history, it is incumbent on all of us to ensure that the men and women who have carried the burden of combat in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other parts of the world, as well as their family members, are taken care of to the fullest extent possible. That means we must address the tragic suicide epidemic in our military. While the services have focused on this problem for years, there still appears to be significant gaps, especially in reserve component and dependent tracking and analysis. This is a complex issue with no obvious solutions, but I intend to work with my colleagues in the Senate to develop comprehensive, meaningful ways to address this problem.

The DoD recently released its 2012 DoD Suicide Event Report, which concluded that there were a total of 319 active component suicides and 203 reserve

component suicides in 2012. That equates to 22.7 and 24.2 for every 100,000 service members, respectively. Additionally, there were a total of 841 attempted suicides in 2012. While preliminary data suggests that 2013 had an 18 percent drop in suicides, this is still a significant and tragic problem in the military that we need to tackle head-on. The report doesn't include any data for dependent suicide or attempted suicide, because currently only the U.S. Army even tries to track that information, so there is no comprehensive assessment of how years of combat and readiness have impacted military dependents in that way.

The purpose of the DoD Suicide Tracking Act is to establish programs to consistently track and analyze information regarding suicides involving members of the reserve components and dependents of regular and reserve component members. Specifically, the bill would improve consistency in reserve component suicide prevention and resiliency programs by requiring the Secretary of Defense to develop a standard method for collecting, reporting, and assessing suicide data and suicide attempt data involving members of the National Guard and Reserves. Alaskans are extremely proud of the contributions of our National Guard and Reserve members, both home and abroad. They have endured the stress of readiness, deployments and combat like the active component, making us all very proud. As such, it is time that we ensure the Department of Defense is tracking and addressing their mental well- being just like every other military member.

According to an annual survey by the Blue Star Families military family advocacy group, of 5,100 military family members surveyed in 2012, 9 percent of military spouses reported that they had considered suicide. Of those, nearly a quarter said they had not sought help. This bill would establish a Department of Defense suicide prevention program for military dependents that requires each service to implement programs to track, report and analyze information regarding suicides. We often talk about the burden placed on military family members, but when it comes to suicide we have simply cut them out of the conversation. This bill would ensure the DoD finally focuses on the hardship and emotional stress born by military dependents and keeps them in the picture when evaluating the problem and working towards a solution. Our military family members have endured countless deployments, cared for injured service members, and picked up the pieces when heroes have made the ultimate sacrifice. I intend to make sure our government cares for them and gives them options beyond suicide to recover from their pain and emotional stress.

Suicide among the active military, reserve and veteran populations continues to be a problem that doesn't appear to be improving. Sadly, the problem will likely get worse before it improves as the war in Afghanistan winds down and the services downsize, sending veterans with complex mental issues into the private sector without the military for support. That is why we need to improve our efforts now to proactively identify and care for these service members and their families as soon as possible and with the full resourcing of the Department of Defense. Our military men and women, and their families, have endured years of conflict across the world. They embody the proud tradition of selfless service to our Nation and I cannot thank them enough for everything they do. I call on all of my colleagues in the Senate to help those who have dedicated their lives to helping others and who, day in and day out, make the ultimate sacrifice in the defense of our freedoms.

I would like to thank Representative Niki Tsongas for her leadership on this issue and introduction of the House companion bill, H.R. 4504.

Mr. President I have come to the floor today to reintroduce a piece of legislation that I feel is long overdue. The Hmong Veterans' Service Recognition Act is a bill to authorize the interment in national cemeteries of Hmong veterans who served in support of U.S. forces during the Vietnam War. Thousands of members of the Hmong community fought for America during Vietnam yet they enjoy no rights as veterans. The Hmong veterans are requesting to be buried in national cemeteries and I, along with a bipartisan group of colleagues, Senators Franken, Klobuchar, Feinstein, Begich, Whitehouse, and Pryor, believe this is an appropriate honor.

To preserve Laos's neutrality during the Vietnam War, the U.S., Soviet Union, North Vietnam, and ten other countries signed the 1962 Geneva Declaration prohibiting all foreign military personnel from Laos. While the U.S. and other countries withdrew all military personnel, the North Vietnamese Army blatantly violated the Geneva Declaration by keeping thousands of troops in Laos. Using Laotian territory to circumvent borders, these NVA forces posed a direct threat to America's military position in South Vietnam. Unable to be present in Laos, but needing to counteract the NVA, America required a covert military force. The Hmong were ideal candidates for America's secret war--they were renowned as being brave fighters who knew the rocky mountain terrain of Northern Laos well.

All told, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency conducted covert operations in Laos which employed some 60,000 Hmong volunteers in Special Guerilla Units. The Hmong Fighters interrupted operations on the Ho Chi Minh trail and assisted in downed aircraft recovery operations of American Airmen. In Laos, they valiantly fought the Vietnamese and Laotian Communists for over a decade and were critical to America's war efforts in Vietnam. In all, over 35,000 Hmong lost their lives by the end of our involvement in Vietnam.

Since the end of the Vietnam War, thousands of Hmong and Lao families have resettled around the United States to become legal permanent residents or United States citizens and have greatly contributed to American society. There are currently over 260,000 Hmong people in America. According to the 2010 Census, the heaviest concentrations are in California, Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Michigan, Colorado, Georgia, Oklahoma, Oregon, and my home State of Alaska.

Of the Hmong who became U.S. citizens, approximately 6,000 veterans are

still with us today, and they deserve the choice to be buried in national cemeteries. This concept is not without precedent. Currently, burial benefits are available for Philippine Armed Forces veterans who answered the call to serve during World War II, just like the Hmong. This legislation would not grant the small group of Hmong veterans full veteran benefits, but would simply authorize their interment in national cemeteries across the Nation. A small, but deserved token of appreciation and an appropriate honor for their sacrifices towards a common goal of democracy and freedom in the world.

This new legislation is improved from the previous version, S. 200, in that it connects with Public Law 106-207: The Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act of 2000 which acknowledges Hmong Special Guerilla Unit's contributions during Vietnam and provides a path to validation of a Hmong veteran's service for the purpose of naturalization. Public Law already recognizes the service of Hmong Special Guerilla Unit veterans for the purpose of naturalization, so it is a natural connection to afford them burial rights as well.

Hmong-Americans who fought and risked their lives in secret for America deserve the same public respect and honor we give the men and women they served with and rescued. I believe it's time to honor the service and sacrifice of Hmong Special Guerilla Unit Veterans by allowing them to be buried alongside their brothers in arms in our national cemeteries. Again, I appreciate the support of my colleagues from across the aisle for this legislation and look forward to working with them and others in the Senate to finally getting this approved into law this year.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President I have come to the floor today to reintroduce a piece of legislation that I feel is long overdue. The Hmong Veterans' Service Recognition Act is a bill to authorize the interment in national cemeteries of Hmong veterans who served in support of U.S. forces during the Vietnam War. Thousands of members of the Hmong community fought for America during Vietnam yet they enjoy no rights as veterans. The Hmong veterans are requesting to be buried in national cemeteries and I, along with a bipartisan group of colleagues, Senators Franken, Klobuchar, Feinstein, Begich, Whitehouse, and Pryor, believe this is an appropriate honor.

To preserve Laos's neutrality during the Vietnam War, the U.S., Soviet Union, North Vietnam, and ten other countries signed the 1962 Geneva Declaration prohibiting all foreign military personnel from Laos. While the U.S. and other countries withdrew all military personnel, the North Vietnamese Army blatantly violated the Geneva Declaration by keeping thousands of troops in Laos. Using Laotian territory to circumvent borders, these NVA forces posed a direct threat to America's military position in South Vietnam. Unable to be present in Laos, but needing to counteract the NVA, America required a covert military force. The Hmong were ideal candidates for America's secret war--they were renowned as being brave fighters who knew the rocky mountain terrain of Northern Laos well.

All told, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency conducted covert operations in Laos which employed some 60,000 Hmong volunteers in Special Guerilla Units. The Hmong Fighters interrupted operations on the Ho Chi Minh trail and assisted in downed aircraft recovery operations of American Airmen. In Laos, they valiantly fought the Vietnamese and Laotian Communists for over a decade and were critical to America's war efforts in Vietnam. In all, over 35,000 Hmong lost their lives by the end of our involvement in Vietnam.

Since the end of the Vietnam War, thousands of Hmong and Lao families have resettled around the United States to become legal permanent residents or United States citizens and have greatly contributed to American society. There are currently over 260,000 Hmong people in America. According to the 2010 Census, the heaviest concentrations are in California, Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Michigan, Colorado, Georgia, Oklahoma, Oregon, and my home State of Alaska.

Of the Hmong who became U.S. citizens, approximately 6,000 veterans are

still with us today, and they deserve the choice to be buried in national cemeteries. This concept is not without precedent. Currently, burial benefits are available for Philippine Armed Forces veterans who answered the call to serve during World War II, just like the Hmong. This legislation would not grant the small group of Hmong veterans full veteran benefits, but would simply authorize their interment in national cemeteries across the Nation. A small, but deserved token of appreciation and an appropriate honor for their sacrifices towards a common goal of democracy and freedom in the world.

This new legislation is improved from the previous version, S. 200, in that it connects with Public Law 106-207: The Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act of 2000 which acknowledges Hmong Special Guerilla Unit's contributions during Vietnam and provides a path to validation of a Hmong veteran's service for the purpose of naturalization. Public Law already recognizes the service of Hmong Special Guerilla Unit veterans for the purpose of naturalization, so it is a natural connection to afford them burial rights as well.

Hmong-Americans who fought and risked their lives in secret for America deserve the same public respect and honor we give the men and women they served with and rescued. I believe it's time to honor the service and sacrifice of Hmong Special Guerilla Unit Veterans by allowing them to be buried alongside their brothers in arms in our national cemeteries. Again, I appreciate the support of my colleagues from across the aisle for this legislation and look forward to working with them and others in the Senate to finally getting this approved into law this year.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.